Psychological Science 2016, Vol. 27(12) 1660–1666 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797616669947 pss.sagepub.com Research Report Feeling powerful leads to action (e.g., Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003), whether for good or for bad (e.g., help- ing, cheating; Côté et al., 2011; Yap, Wazlawek, Lucas, Cuddy, & Carney, 2013). In contrast, ambivalence leads to inaction, especially when a relevant decision is impend- ing (e.g., van Harreveld, van der Pligt, & de Liver, 2009). So, what happens when someone feels both powerful and ambivalent? Surprisingly, established research is silent on this question. Inspired by the self-validation theory of judgment (Briñol, Petty, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra, 2007; DeMarree, Briñol, & Petty, 2014; Petty, Briñol, & Tormala, 2002), we predicted that power would validate whatever thoughts par- ticipants had at the moment of a decision, be they univalent or ambivalent. Specifically, the self-validation perspective on power suggests that when individuals’ thoughts are consis- tently positive or consistently negative, those with high power would be more likely to act than those with low power because of the greater confidence powerful people have in their judgments. However, when individuals’ thoughts are instead ambivalent—both positive and negative—power should have the opposite effect on action. That is, if power validates individuals’ ambivalent reactions (based on objectively mixed information), more powerful people would trust their ambivalence more and behave accordingly. This magnification effect (Clarkson, Tormala, & Rucker, 2008; Luttrell, Petty, & Briñol, 2016; Petty, Briñol, Tormala, & Wegener, 2007) would translate into powerful people acting less decisively and more slowly than power- less people when they are ambivalent. Although some studies have shown that the powerful can attend more flexibly to goal-relevant aspects of their situation than the powerless can (Overbeck & Park, 2006) and that the powerful can think before acting as much as the powerless when increased thinking prior to a difficult 669947PSS XX X 10.1177/0956797616669947Durso et al.Power and Ambivalence research-article 2016 Corresponding Author: Geoffrey R. O. Durso, The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology, 1835 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210 E-mail: durso.9@osu.edu From Power to Inaction: Ambivalence Gives Pause to the Powerful Geoffrey R. O. Durso 1 , Pablo Briñol 2 , and Richard E. Petty 1 1 Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, and 2 Departamento de Psicología Social y Metodología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Abstract Research has shown that people who feel powerful are more likely to act than those who feel powerless, whereas people who feel ambivalent are less likely to act than those whose reactions are univalent (entirely positive or entirely negative). But what happens when powerful people also are ambivalent? On the basis of the self-validation theory of judgment, we hypothesized that power and ambivalence would interact to predict individuals’ action. Because power can validate individuals’ reactions, we reasoned that feeling powerful strengthens whatever reactions people have during a decision. It can strengthen univalent reactions and increase action orientation, as shown in past research. Among people who hold an ambivalent judgment, however, those who feel powerful would be less action oriented than those who feel powerless. Two experiments provide evidence for this hypothesized interactive effect of power and ambivalence on individuals’ action tendencies during both positive decisions (promoting an employee; Experiment 1) and negative decisions (firing an employee; Experiment 2). In summary, when individuals’ reactions are ambivalent, power increases the likelihood of inaction. Keywords power, ambivalence, self-validation, action, decision time, open data Received 2/8/16; Revision accepted 8/25/16 at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on December 9, 2016 pss.sagepub.com Downloaded from